Woman murdered for rejecting a man, another gets her throat slashed for the same.

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

All I have going through my head is the saying 'A mans worst fear is being laughed at - a woman's worst fear is being murdered'

This saying is stupid, belittling to EVERYONE involved, and inaccurate.

My worst fear is that I will wake up one day to find that everyone and everything I ever thought I knew was, in fact, a lie and that I had made it all up in an attempt to keep myself from knowing that I'm actually a serial killer in an insane asylum.

My second is that a woman will accuse me of raping her child thereby destroying my life, livelihood and any chance at a happy life.

My third is that I will be forced to violate my self-imposed oath of celibacy, dooming me to burn for all eternity in the fiery pits of hell.

My fourth is dieing before completing a novel. Fifth is that I'll commit suicide, then comes wasps, needles, and drowning.

How is this " belittling"? I have been attacked my multiple men, have been stalked by men, Have had to put a man in prison for actually trying to kill me and the only reason I am here now is my neighbor stopped him and was stabbed in the process. Women fear these things because of our experiences. The reason women fear this is because this is not some thing you read about on the news, most of us have been attacked by men or has had someone close to us who has. Of course I am afraid for myself and others due to these things. I was violently raped, my best friend was raped, my sister was raped, my grandmother was raped, ALL by different men... this is not some uncommon thing at all is the problem. It is very scary telling a guy "No" because of how many guys respond when you do. Trying to make them understand that you do not want relations with them without them becoming angry is often difficult to do.

I am trying to understand why you think it would belittling to admit that I have nightmares about being attacked now due to events that happened. Why would saying that is your worst fear be belittling?

 

[Thaluikhain]

All I have going through my head is the saying 'A mans worst fear is being laughed at - a woman's worst fear is being murdered'

This saying is stupid, belittling to EVERYONE involved, and inaccurate.

My worst fear is that I will wake up one day to find that everyone and everything I ever thought I knew was, in fact, a lie and that I had made it all up in an attempt to keep myself from knowing that I'm actually a serial killer in an insane asylum.

My second is that a woman will accuse me of raping her child thereby destroying my life, livelihood and any chance at a happy life.

My third is that I will be forced to violate my self-imposed oath of celibacy, dooming me to burn for all eternity in the fiery pits of hell.

My fourth is dieing before completing a novel. Fifth is that I'll commit suicide, then comes wasps, needles, and drowning.

The saying has been clarified several times already in this thread.

It isn't about fears in general, it's about what men fear about women, and about what women fear about men.

 

[RandV80]

I have no problem with the Margarette Atwood thing. With men being the more physically dominant sex of our species, I suspect it's more of a primal instinct thing. An instinct that both sexes can feel when a person(s) could potentially dominate you and cause physical harm, but the 'danger' bar is just set that much lower for the average woman.

Another thing to consider, while I take some personal offense to this sort of label (man=dangerous potential rapist or whatever) being slapped on men in general, one should keep in mind that with the rate we mix & mingle before settling down in today's society every woman has a reasonable chance of coming across a bad apple. I have no idea what the actual numbers may be but let me make up some bad maths. Say 1 in 50 guys are scumbags who will get aggressive if a woman turns them down. On the other side of the spectrum, the average girl will interact an average of 10 guys before settling on a partner. By a general law of averages you know have a statistic of 20% of women who've experience some form of trauma caused by some scumbag male, enough to pass the horror story on and spread the fear around the entire gender.

Like I said I'm not sure what the actual numbers may be, but it's not hard to see why Margaret Atwood & many other females would have this 'fear'.

 

[Thaluikhain]

These people don't do these things because they're men, they do it because they're freaking psychopaths.

Citation needed.

Now, certainly, there's nothing inherently evil about men, but to say that anyone that does something we'd judge evil must be a psychopath is just avoiding looking at the issue. The rates of such thing greatly vary depending on culture.

Saying that the people who do bad things must be psychopaths, and given that men are greatly over-represented in perpetrators...that implies things about men.

 

[Ticklefist]

Nevermind. Comment removed. I said all I wanted to say on this topic earlier.

 

[Fulbert]

That conclusion is pretty terrible when you consider the fact that men usually make up about 70 to 80 percent of homicide victims worldwide...

That conclusion is a reference to a quote from writer Margret Atwood when she was talking about what men fear from women vs what women fear from men. So its pretty relevant to the discussion.

I don't get it. What I read is that if one person draws incorrect conclusions than it's OK to quote that as conclusions since you are not actually the one making it?

As I said, that conclusion disturbs me. What has happened is terrible, and those people are not fit to be in general society to say the least, but that conclusion has no merits.

What you are trying to do is to trivialise women's plight by likening their oppression to men's problems and trying to argue they are equal in gravity. That is misogynist.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Humans kill humans for stupid reasons.

Story as old as humanity, just look at Ukraine, Putin gets thousands killed because he thinks his genitalia is small.

 

[Saetha]

For instance, I went to the Bureau of Justice Statistics [http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245] site that the article about male rape which claimed proved 38% of sexual assault victims in 2012 was based on, but I can't actually find any statistics on the site that specific.

Uh, actually, the BJS states that the last data available was from 2012, while the data the study quotes is from 2013 (It says this information was uncovered last year, and that article was posted in 2014) So they probably just haven't released the information in a report yet. Don't these things usually trail two years behind?

Which seems rather strange. I'm also seeing, from what little actual information being revealed about this, is that these are overwhelming male on male cases, in fact, one website I found [http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php] cites 98.1% of women and 93% of men were raped by men.

To which I ask - how do they define rape? If it's defined as forced penetration, than of course it'll show up as mostly men who do it. Women don't exactly have much to penetrate with, and they don't gain much pleasure themselves from doing so. Men, on the other hand...

I also find it telling that these studies include prison inmate rape in order to inflate their numbers. I say inflate the numbers because men are incarcerated at about an 11x higher rate [http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html] than women. There are also, reportedly, 3000 more rapes/sexual assaults [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women] occurring in prisons than there are among the general public.

How can you know this when you yourself say that you can't find the information? You don't know how they got their numbers, much less if they counted men in prison.

9/10ths of the victims among the general populous are said to be girls/women. But, even with similar rape percentages between male and female inmates, that still means there's 11x more men being raped in prison than women. There you go, you now have equal numbers of men being raped verses women because you included prison rape. However, if women were incarcerated at the same rate as men, if there was a roughly equal population of women in prison as men, as there is among the general public, those numbers would go right back to overwhelmingly women being raped.

Okay? Uh, first of all - sources. Second of all, does it matter what the rate would be if this or that were true? It doesn't change the fact that there are many times more men who are a victim of this than women, and thus, it's a far more serious problem for them.

If I were ten times better at math than I am now, I could be the next Stephen Hawking. That doesn't mean that I should be treated like a math genius, because if things were different, than I would be. Same goes here - all you're saying is that things would be different if things were different. But they're not, so...?

Interesting findings about the study about teenagers and sexual assault as well, and more skewed results:

"But when you get into coercive and attempted rape, it does seem to differ"?with males committing 75 percent of these crimes, compared with 25 percent committed by females.

But they also found that completed rape is predominantly a male crime?a finding that is in line with general attitudes about rape, according to Sharmili Majmudar of Chicago-based Rape Victim Advocates, which was not associated with the study.

"Almost all of what we know of sexual violence by teens against teens and among adults is fairly consistent in naming men as the most likely to be the perpetrator" of completed rape, Majmudar said.

So while females don't commit rape at the same rates as males, they are just as likely to coerce a male partner into foresexual contact.

So, basically, the study finds that teenaged girls are more likely to kiss or touch (not sexually assault, mind, just touch), but teenaged boys are still overwhelmingly more likely to commit actual rape or sexual assault. That "foresexual (or presexual) contact" is lumped in with actual sexual assault and rape as "sexual violence" seems fairly fishy.

Does the study define the contact as such, or are you just minimizing it to defend your opinion? I guess it's a-okay for a man to walk up to a woman, forcibly kiss her, grope her breasts and paw at her clothing, since that's "just touching." Not at all traumatizing either. And regardless, the fact that the study shows sexual violence is something both genders perpetrate on roughly equal terms still undermines the idea of "rape culture," and that men abuse and objectify women because of entitlement or whatever. Otherwise women wouldn't do it either.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
Now, onto a study I can actually find in full [http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf] from 2011. It tells a far different story from the unverifiable findings claimed:

Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.

Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime; most men who were made to penetrate someone else reported that the perpetrator was either an intimate partner (44.8%) or an acquaintance (44.7%).

Aaah, there's the study. Thanks for bringing it up. Now, yes, the CDC does report 1 in 21 men as being made to penetrate... but, if you look at the raw data, you'll see something fishy. Please direct your attention to Table 2.2 on page 19:

For "Made to Penetrate - lifetime" it puts the number at about 5.4 million. Why that's "only" a fourth of the rate that women get raped at! Clearly it doesn't matter as much, so let's just carry on our merry way...

...except... for 2010 alone it reported 1.2 million instances of men being made to penetrate. In a single year. Well, that's got to be wrong, right? How can only a fifth of the lifetime incidents have taken place in a single year?

That don't seem fishy at all to you?Did men being forced to penetrate only get invented in the last five years? Was 2010 some massive, unexplained spike in the rate? Granted, I don't where that line leads from there, but it certainly seems to mean that men, for whatever reason, are less likely to report lifetime rape - but for the record, the number of men that year who reported they were forced to penetrate is only slightly smaller than the number of women who reported such. So, one can infer that in a generation, the lifetime stat for men and women will be roughly equal - it'll have to be, considering the yearly rate is roughly equal. Unless you can come up with a reason for why there's such a discrepancy.

Needless to say, there seems to be a lot of conflicting information out there depending on where you look. Either way, it seems the reports you are citing are inflating their numbers by including statistics such as prison inmate rape and presexual contact.

You still have no evidence of the first, only assumptions. And again, the other study was explicit about dealing with sexual violence.

Now, we can talk about rape not being defined as being forced to penetrate, but you know what? The country has already had that discussion, and federal laws have already been changed to included forced to penetrate as rape. This is a legitimate wrong that is being addressed.

No. No, it isn't. The only thing that was changed, was that the definiton of rape used to specifically say "carnal knowledge of the female body." As in, only women can be raped. The definition has thrown out the blatant gender bias, but nothing else.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions

Snipped for length

I don't approve of discussion about women and about their rights being shouted down with "but TEH MENZ?" But when inflammatory comments like that Atwood quote are made, people will drag the guys into this. When comments trivializing a massively ignored issue are made, people are going to try and shout down the issue it's being trivialized for.

I wish that feminists could have a discussion of women's rights, just women's rights, without feeling the need to bring men in, and not have to put up with shitheads who drag the dudes in anyway. I wish we could have the same discussion, with the same circumstances, about men's rights, and I'm grateful that there's a thread on this site that has (mostly) held to that. But what we really need to be having, and what is so rarely found, is a discussion of men's and women's right without the vitriol. Without the "Well, we have it worse!" pissing contest. A discussion where we can calmly lay out the issues effecting men and women, instead of claims of "Yeah, but it happens to men, too" or "It's worse for women so we can ignore your issues."

But, quite a few comments - from people on both sides - have failed to do that. And for this specific thread, at least, this isn't an issue of someone trying to shout down women's right issues with "But the men." The OP brought men into this argument. The final comment brought them in. And I have no doubt that, even if that comment weren't there, someone would still bring up guys. The only difference there would be that I would consider them wrong for it. But when the OP itself broaches the topic... well, I can't blame anyone for pointing out the fallacy in that logic.

 

[Verlander]

I wanted to join the hordes of people calling you out, but I actually might agree (to somewhat a lesser extent).

If I approach a woman in a club, the worst fear I have is being turned down. That's the worst case scenario. To a woman, the worst case scenario can be much worse, a steroid fuelled moron getting frustrated in rejection.

Then again, that's part of the problem of leaving "the approach" down to men. Were it the other way around, and women were more inclined to chat up men, I think there'd be much less of a problem.

 

[Psychoalpha]

Trying to tie the articles listed to anything but insanity is itself pretty insane.

I wouldn't argue that there are societal issues that need to be looked at and addressed when it comes to male entitlement, but to pretend that has anything to do with this is ridiculous at best. These people are insane. Not even the most misogynistic dirtbag, outside of a complete troll, is going to say that slitting a woman's throat is even an option if she tells you she's not interested.

If a complete stranger tries to pick you up, and upon turning him down he gets physically violent to the point of drawing a weapon and trying to maim or kill you, he is damaged and in no way representative of anything except crazy people who lose their minds over trivial bullshit.

There's certainly things to say about how men handle rejection, but trying to springboard into that off of an article where a crazy person slits someone else's throat because they said something the crazy person didn't like is probably not the best way of doing it unless you're just trying to start a pointless argument on the inter...

Oh, right. My bad. Carry on.

 

[carnex]

That conclusion is pretty terrible when you consider the fact that men usually make up about 70 to 80 percent of homicide victims worldwide...

That conclusion is a reference to a quote from writer Margret Atwood when she was talking about what men fear from women vs what women fear from men. So its pretty relevant to the discussion.

I don't get it. What I read is that if one person draws incorrect conclusions than it's OK to quote that as conclusions since you are not actually the one making it?

As I said, that conclusion disturbs me. What has happened is terrible, and those people are not fit to be in general society to say the least, but that conclusion has no merits.

What you are trying to do is to trivialise women's plight by likening their oppression to men's problems and trying to argue they are equal in gravity. That is misogynist.

Now where did I say that? I cant remember.

I can't see comparing one gender's troubles with other gender troubles of same sort as sexist much less misogynist.

I said I find that conclusion disturbing. I find that statement both fearmongering for women as a sex/gender and villainizing for men as sex/gender and in my opinion both of those are both wrong and harmful.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Maybe it's just me, but when I read things like this I don't see it as a gender issue, I see it as an entitlement issue.

That only works if gender doesn't affect the way entitlement applies.

But instead of it coming down to a matter of "who has it worse", shouldn't we be, as people, looking at how we see entitlement as a society?

"Who has it worse" is often used to describe people talking about which elements of society are seen as more entitled.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Now, certainly, there's nothing inherently evil about men, but to say that anyone that does something we'd judge evil must be a psychopath is just avoiding looking at the issue. The rates of such thing greatly vary depending on culture.

Saying that the people who do bad things must be psychopaths, and given that men are greatly over-represented in perpetrators...that implies things about men.

That is a TERRIBLE thing to say!
Jesus, dude, comparison (most recent one I could google: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/texas-execute-lisa-coleman-lethal-injection-woman) how many women kill children compared to men?
"They're greatly over-represented in perpetrators... that implies things about women"

You say 'there's nothing inherently evil about men', but it sounds like you think they have a greater role in everything bad that happens.

I'm willing to say that it didn't come across the way you wanted it to, but c'mon!

 

[Thaluikhain]

That is a TERRIBLE thing to say!

Yes...that's one reason we shouldn't start with the assumption that people who do bad things are psychopaths. Because we must end up implying something about men.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Men today are punks.

Oh, hey, thanks. That'll REALLY get some thoughtful and considered discussion on this topic.

Fine.

But we are, we've gotten so thin skinned, I don't know what's causing it but I think it's the "toddler syndrome", when you lash out when you don't get your way.

A while back some thug tried to start a fight with me on a train because he thought I was someone else, I kept saying "it wasn't me" but he was adamant, fool wouldn't let it go after a brief recess he started up, I tried to change the subject by saying "nice dog" and he tried to get it to attack me (the dog was to lax) before it could get anywhere our stop (yep) came we parted ways and he left in a strop. If the ride had been longer if I'd have cussed him out (cuz I have a big mouth) if he had convinced his dog, who knows. And I live in an area where most young guys have a knife at hand. And all for what? Thinking all black guys look alike

It's weird though, have any one of you heard of a woman killing a man because he rejected her? I know a woman has killed a man for giving other people more attention but not over "No, I won't go out with you"

Was all these attacks one of those "in the moment" thing? I'm starting to suspect they've engaged in this sort of violence before.

There's a story I read today of this young guy that killed his mum today here [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/sicko-teen-life-killing-texas-mother-raping-corpse-article-1.1968393] and planned to kill his sister, and from what I've read/heard was showing signs of insanity (necrophilia and suicide). And again, a single parent house hold. I doubt they'll be any significant numbers but I wounder if you gauged all the crimes committed by men from broken homes what the percentage would be.

I'm not saying a stable home will change this growing apathy but i'd like to know if it matters

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Now, certainly, there's nothing inherently evil about men, but to say that anyone that does something we'd judge evil must be a psychopath is just avoiding looking at the issue. The rates of such thing greatly vary depending on culture.

Saying that the people who do bad things must be psychopaths, and given that men are greatly over-represented in perpetrators...that implies things about men.

That is a TERRIBLE thing to say!
Jesus, dude, comparison (most recent one I could google: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/texas-execute-lisa-coleman-lethal-injection-woman) how many women kill children compared to men?
"They're greatly over-represented in perpetrators... that implies things about women"

You say 'there's nothing inherently evil about men', but it sounds like you think they have a greater role in everything bad that happens.

I'm willing to say that it didn't come across the way you wanted it to, but c'mon!

I wish I could find the stats but I remember reading that Women kill more children than men but men lead in family killings (as in lovers/wives, mothers, fathers and kids etc.) and that women cause (instigate) more deaths than men, as in if a man kills another man it's often at the behest of a woman than the other way around.

I really wish I remember what the link was.

 

[Adam Lester]

Listening to two groups in a first world nation ***** at one another to figure out who is more oppressed is like watching two people sit there in a room and beat themselves in the face with hammers, refusing to stop until the opposing side feels sorry for them.


Women being murdered doesn't negate the fact that men get murdered, men getting murdered doesn't negate the fact that women get murdered.

 

[carnex]

Listening to two groups in a first world nation ***** at one another to figure out who is more oppressed is like watching two people sit there in a room and beat themselves in the face with hammers, refusing to stop until the opposing side feels sorry for them.


Women being murdered doesn't negate the fact that men get murdered, men getting murdered doesn't negate the fact that women get murdered.

But that is not the question, the question is, or at least i think that was OP's intention, should women be afraid of unknown men approaching them in general?

 

[Adam Lester]

Listening to two groups in a first world nation ***** at one another to figure out who is more oppressed is like watching two people sit there in a room and beat themselves in the face with hammers, refusing to stop until the opposing side feels sorry for them.


Women being murdered doesn't negate the fact that men get murdered, men getting murdered doesn't negate the fact that women get murdered.

But that is not the question, the question is, or at least i think that was OP's intention, should women be afraid of unknown men approaching them in general?

I was merely commenting on the chucklefuckery that these kind of questions devolve down into.

On this question, wouldn't that be up to an individual's judgement? I dunno, I would be pretty baffled as well as a little hurt if I approached a woman in the bar and she jumped up, shrieked that I'm a potential rapist/serial killer while running out the door flailing her arms (if I wanted that, I'd have a Tumblr account).

Unfortunately, tragedies like this are unavoidable in the long run because they are random and you don't know a murderer in some cases until they get to murdering. We can be aware and prepared (mace, blackjacks, "escape plans", etc) but sometimes even that won't be enough.
Let me give you an example. When I was living in Virginia, there was talk about how a woman picked up a dude from the bar and asked him to come back to her hotel room. When he entered the room, there were three men waiting...they beat the piss out of him, gang raped the guy and stole his money, and gave her a cut.

Fun fact: Not to brag, I've had my share of one night stands. Even with this knowledge in the back of my head, it never stopped me from going back to a strange woman's hotel room. I never got raped. None of my friends who had similar experiences in the bar ever got gang raped by a pack of roaming freaks.

I understand that this is a bit disjointed and all, but I hope I'm getting some kind of point across which is live your life, but don't live your life in fear.

There are screwed up people out there, but they're far and few in between.

 

[Dizchu]

Woman gets assaulted/mutilated by man = nationwide outrage, "rape culture", "this is why I need feminism".

Man gets castrated by a woman = laughs and encouragement on awful talk shows, "you go girl!", "the guy deserved it".

No wonder there's widespread mistrust between genders. Look, men are more likely to be killed but are also more likely to commit homicide. I think that indicates a problem with masculine identity, there's something about it that has an expectation for violence deep down. Men are expected to stand up for themselves, fight, suffer the consequences.

It does not mean women have it tougher. Not in a general sense at least.

All I have going through my head is the saying 'A mans worst fear is being laughed at - a woman's worst fear is being murdered'

You have a very skewed idea of society if you honestly believe this. I'm not trying to be mean. Gay men get murdered for chatting other men up, straight men get assaulted for "trying it on" with a woman in a relationship (by her boyfriend if he's around). Now you might take the fact that most of the perpetrators are male as proof of "male entitlement" or "female oppression" or what have you, but I think it indicates absolutely rotten expectations given to men that enforce a constant doubt of their own masculinity which may result in them feeling the need to lash out. I'm not defending their actions for a second but society is at least partially to blame.